Supporters of miracles try to look reasonable by making the likes of David Hume who said that human nature lies and errs too much to be trusted with miracle stories look biased and ignorant.

The case against sceptics is based on lies.  Even if we should believe in miracle reports, we cannot lend the credence as they are coming from such dishonest ideologies and faiths.


Suppose Hume defined a miracle as a violation of nature.
Christians say he was defining a miracle in such a way as to make it look stupid. In other words, he was trying to argue that as a miracle is a violation of nature and violations of nature don't happen then miracles don't happen.  He never wrote that.  He just said that it is more likely for nature to do what it does than for anything to be changing that and that a miracle would be a violation.

His argument is not about a miracle being a violation - it is about a miracle being very unlikely to be true. A miracle by definition has to be something that needs tremendously good evidence.

Also, Hume talks of laws of nature, meaning not literal laws but it is just an expression about how the universe works. Laws of nature to Hume mean how the universe works according to our experience and experimentation. It is not true that Hume was saying natural law is unchangeable and iron-clad so miracles would be impossible. He says a miracle is not a violation of iron law but a violation of how we should see the law.
Some Christians say that Hume contradicts himself by not defining nature as rigid and then saying miracles cannot happen. They are totally wrong. He never meant iron rigidity.

Did Hume simply assume miracles can't happen? Did he also assume they are therefore unbelievable? That implies that a miracle is being defined as an unbelievable event. Hume is accused of that but if he is guilty why didn't he write, "A miracle is an event that cannot be believed in"? He wrote no such and did lay out when and why we can believe.

Christians claim that Hume argues that miracles are by definition unbelievable. This is not true. The quote from him that allegedly proves it is true goes, "A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature. There must, therefore, be a uniform experience against every miraculous event, otherwise the event would not merit that appellation. And as a uniform experience amounts to a proof, there is here a direct and full proof, from the nature of the fact, against the existence of any miracle." He said we can believe if it is a bigger miracle for the evidence for a miracle to be wrong. The assumption is that if miracle x is more supernatural than miracle y then choose y. Choose the least miraculous thing. He did however believe that a miracle is by definition hard to believe which is why evidence is so important. A miracle being hard to believe is not the same as a miracle being unbelievable.

Hume does not say that miracles are impossible. He says they could be possible. He only says nobody can be expected to believe they happen for the evidence is never be good enough. He is merely voicing the fact that there has to be a line drawn somewhere in relation to what testimony and evidence point to. Everybody has a line. There are things we cannot believe even if there is testimony and evidence. He indicates that if miracles and magic are not among those things then nothing is. He says what kind of evidence is needed so the fact that no miracle he knows of today is backed up properly does not mean that a properly attested and authenticated miracle might happen tomorrow.


Hume did not argue that violations of nature are impossible so miracles are violations and therefore impossible.  He did not argue that a miracle is by definition unbelievable.  He said miracles can have evidence but experience shows that people lie and make mistakes and even nature can mislead.

The fact is that some declarations, even if there is supporting evidence, are to be dismissed.  Religion and atheists both reject the well-attested miracle of the brick that turns pink from its natural colour and back again in an hour.  If we follow Hume we are guilty only of consistency.  While you need solid evidence for a miracle, the probability of the miracle does matter.  Nothing changes the fact that odd and unrepeatable things happen in nature and could make you think you seen a miracle that you in fact did not.  Natural anomalies are not miracles.

Christians absolutely go with Hume except for their pet miracles such as the resurrection of Jesus.  The dishonesty is appalling.   The use of a dead man, one who supposedly died a horrible unjust death, in this way is horrendous.  Religious freedom is valid but it cannot be when a man is used like that when he cannot speak for himself.  He did not even leave a declaration signed or anything.

Plus Hume is accused of not researching but he did. He spoke against accepting accounts of miracles from people we don't even know in the Bible.  If I limit my faith in miracles to people I can talk to and cross-check that is one thing.  But to listen to a Bible is sheer reckless gullibility.


No Copyright